Multi-Method Study of Police Special Weapons and Tactics Teams in the United States, 1986-1998 (ICPSR 20351)

This research study was designed to pursue three specific
goals to accomplish its objective of enhancing knowledge about Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams and the role they play in
contemporary American policing. The first goal was to develop a better
picture of the structure and nature of SWAT teams in American law
enforcement. The second goal of the research project was to increase
the amount of knowledge about how SWAT teams prepare for and execute
operations. The project's third goal was to develop information about
one specific aspect of SWAT operations: the use of force, especially
deadly force, by both officers and suspects. To gather this
information, the SWAT Operations Survey (SOS) was conducted. This was a
nationwide survey of law enforcement agencies with 50 or more sworn
officers. The survey sought information about the agencies' emergency
response capabilities and structures. The SOS included two
instruments: (1) the Operations Form, completed by a total of 341
agencies, and containing variables about the organization and
functioning of SWAT teams, and (2) the Firearms Discharge Report,
which includes a total of 273 shootings of interest, as well as items
about incidents in which SWAT officers and suspects discharged
firearms during SWAT operations.

This research study was designed to pursue three specific
goals to accomplish its objective of enhancing knowledge about Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams and the role they play in
contemporary American policing. The first goal was to develop a better
picture of the structure and nature of SWAT teams in American law
enforcement. The second goal of the research project was to increase
the amount of knowledge about how SWAT teams prepare for and execute
operations. The project's third goal was to develop information about
one specific aspect of SWAT operations: the use of force, especially
deadly force, by both officers and suspects. To gather this
information, the SWAT Operations Survey (SOS) was conducted. This was a
nationwide survey of law enforcement agencies with 50 or more sworn
officers. The survey sought information about the agencies' emergency
response capabilities and structures. The SOS included two
instruments: (1) the Operations Form, completed by a total of 341
agencies, and containing variables about the organization and
functioning of SWAT teams, and (2) the Firearms Discharge Report,
which includes a total of 273 shootings of interest, as well as items
about incidents in which SWAT officers and suspects discharged
firearms during SWAT operations.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Study Description

Citation

Klinger, David. MULTI-METHOD STUDY OF POLICE SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS TEAMS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1986-1998. ICPSR20351-v1. St. Louis, MO: David Klinger, University of Missouri-St. Louis [producer], 2007. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-12-10. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20351.v1

Universe:
State, county, municipal, and special district law
enforcement agencies in the United States, which employed 50 or more
sworn officers in 1996.

Data Type(s):
survey data

Data Collection Notes:

Data from the Post Critical Incident Report (PCIR)
Project, site visits, and observations from training and field
deployment at critical incidents are not available as part of this
collection.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
This research study was designed to pursue three
specific goals to accomplish its objective of enhancing knowledge
about Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams and the role they play
in contemporary American policing. The first goal was to develop a
better picture of the structure and nature of SWAT teams in American
law enforcement (e.g., the mix of full- and part-time teams, how
crisis negotiations and emergency medical services are structured).
The second goal of the research project was to increase the amount of
knowledge about how SWAT teams prepare for and execute operations
(e.g., what sorts of training they do, how they plan for specific
operations, and what they do during actual operations). The project's
third goal was to develop information about one specific aspect of
SWAT operations: the use of force, especially deadly force, by both
officers and suspects.

Study Design:
The SWAT Operations Survey (SOS) was a nationwide
survey of law enforcement agencies with 50 or more sworn officers. It
sought information about the agencies' emergency response capabilities
and structures. The SOS included two instruments: (1) the Operations
Form, completed by and containing a total of 341 agencies, and
containing variables about the organization and functioning of SWAT
teams, and (2) the Firearms Discharge Report, which includes a total
of 273 shootings of interest, as well as items about incidents in
which SWAT officers and suspects discharged firearms during SWAT
operations. The National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA) placed
calls to the office of the head (usually a chief of police or sheriff)
of 2,027 agencies to inquire whether they had a SWAT team. When this
call indicated that the agency did not have a team, the respondent was
thanked for his or her time, and the negative response was noted in a
data file that had been established to track the information obtained
during the survey. When this call indicated that the agency did have a
SWAT team, the respondent was asked to supply the name and contact
information of the commander of the SWAT team so that further
correspondence could be sent directly to that individual. The next
step of the data collection effort consisted of sending a small
information packet to the SWAT commander, which included a letter that
briefly introduced the research project, explained the expanded data
collection efforts, and sought their participation in the project. The
information packet also included a stamped, self-addressed envelop and
a reply form for commanders to provide some basic information about
their team (e.g., the number of officers currently assigned to it) and
to indicate whether they would participate in the study. The reply
form also asked commanders to indicate whether they would like to
report the information via standard paper instruments or via computer,
through data collection software the NTOA had developed. After six
weeks had passed, NTOA personnel recontacted the SWAT commanders of
those agencies that had not responded to the mailing in order to
ensure that they had received the packet and to encourage
participation in the research effort. Messages were left for those
commanders who were not available when the calls were made, and
follow-up mailings were sent to those who reported that they had not
received the initial packet. Once agencies replied to the initial
contact efforts, indicated whether they would like to participate in
the data collection efforts, and indicated their preference for
participating via computer or paper and pencil (among those who
indicated a desire to participate), NTOA staff sent the appropriate
survey media, along with a set of instructions for filling out the
relevant (paper or computer) forms and returning them to the NTOA.

Sample:
The sampling frame of 2,027 agencies included all state,
county, municipal, and special district law enforcement agencies in
the United States, which employed 50 or more sworn officers in 1996.
Respondents at 1,183 of the 2,027 agencies telephonically contacted by
NTOA staff reported that their department had a SWAT team. Several of
the agencies that returned SWAT Operations Surveys indicated that they
contributed officers to multi-jurisdictional SWAT teams. Each of these
agencies was contacted to obtain a list of the other agencies that
participated in their multi-jurisdictional team. The list produced by
this effort was checked against the roster of 2,027 agencies that
comprised the sampling frame to see if the various additional agencies
identified by the phone calls were (1) within the sampling frame, and
if so (2) identified as having a SWAT team. This cross-check
identified an additional 24 agencies that had not been listed in the
original list of 1,183 agencies with SWAT teams. Adding these 24
agencies to the 1,183 agencies already counted as having SWAT teams
yielded a revised count of 1,207 agencies within the sampling frame as
having SWAT teams. Respondents were instructed to complete a separate
Firearms Discharge Report only for each incident in which any SWAT
officers fired their weapons. Accordingly, Part 2, SWAT Survey:
Firearms Discharge Data, offers information on the 273 shootings of
interest (i.e., those that involved shots fired toward people or
accidental discharges).

Weight:
None

Mode of Data Collection:
mail questionnaire,
Web-based survey

Description of Variables:
Part 1, SWAT Survey: Operations Data, provides the
year the agency established its SWAT team, whether the agency has a
full- or part-time SWAT team, whether the agency had its own SWAT team
or it supplied officers to a multiagency team, the number of officers
assigned to the SWAT team, the nature of incident command in
situations in which the SWAT team was mobilized, and deadly force
decision-making in hostage/barricade situations. Part 1 variables also
include crisis negotiations structure, Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) when SWAT is deployed, the amount of time SWAT officers train
per month, the sources of training received by SWAT officers, the
types of situations for which SWAT officers trained, and the annual
number of SWAT mobilizations of various sorts (e.g., barricaded
suspect incidents, hostage incidents, and warrants) from 1986 through
1998. Other variables in Part 1 pertain to the annual number of
incidents in which SWAT officers discharged lethal weapons during SWAT
operations, the annual number of SWAT operations in which suspects
discharged weapons, but SWAT officers held their fire, the number of
suspects who killed themselves each year during SWAT operations,
whether and how often the SWAT team had physically rescued hostages,
as well as whether and how often suspects killed hostages during SWAT
operations. Part 2, SWAT Survey: Firearms Discharge Data, provides the
year the incident occurred, the nature of the incident (e.g.,
barricaded suspect, hostage incident, warrant service), the number of
SWAT officers deployed, as well as the number of suspects, the weapons
each one possessed, whether each suspect fired any guns they
possessed, whether each suspect was taken under fire by SWAT, and the
nature of the wounds each suspect fired upon suffered. Part 2
variables also include the number of SWAT officers who fired their
weapons, their assignment (e.g., entry, long rifle, containment), the
type of weapon they fired (e.g., pistol, assault rifle, submachine
gun) and the number of rounds they fired. Other variables in Part 2
pertain to the total number of rounds fired at suspects by SWAT during
the incident, the number of rounds fired by SWAT that struck suspects,
the number of rounds fired by SWAT that were not directed at humans
(e.g., warning shots, accidental discharges, suppressive fire), the
nature and number of wounds suffered by SWAT officers, and whether
suspects who were shot by SWAT officers may have been committing
"suicide-by-cop".

Response Rates:
The SWAT Operations Survey yielded a final response
rate of 30 percent (365/1,207). Part 1, SWAT Survey: Operations Data,
contains 341 cases and does not include the 24 agencies that were
omitted from the original list of 1,183 agencies with SWAT teams.
Because information about each of these 24 teams had been reported in
the response sent by the agency that submitted a SWAT Operations
Survey to the NTOA, the researchers classified these 24 agencies as
having responded to the survey.

Presence of Common Scales:
None

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Download Statistics

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).